JUDGMENT 1. - The subject matter of challenge in the instant appeal is the judgment and order dated 5.7.2013 passed, amongst others, in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7357/2010 instituted by the appellant herein. By the decision impugned, the appellant's/writ petitioner's assailment of the decision of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Commission') to disqualify him for appointment as Compounder/Nurse (Ayurved) Junior Grade, was negatived. 2. We have heard Mr.M.C.Taylor appearing with Mr.R.M.Bairwa for the appellant/writ petitioner. 3. For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered essential to issue formal notice. 4. The pleaded facts reveal that the appellant/writ petitioner is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. While he was pursuing the Diploma in Ayurved Nurse-Compounder Training and was in the final year of the Course, he offered his candidature for the aforementioned post, in response to the advertisement dated 25.8.2008 published by the Commission. The results of the final year of the Course were declared on 22.9.2009. 5. The academic conditions of eligibility, as incorporated in the aforementioned advertisement, were in following terms:- " 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk% ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ] jktLFkku ls lsdsaMjhA gk;j lsdsaMjhA lhfu;j gk;j lsdsaMjh ;k mlds lerqY; lkFk esa! vk;qosZfnd uflZax esa dh o`fr esa <+kbZ o"kZ dk foHkkxh; izf'k{k.k vks0,e0vkj0 ,Iyhds'ku QkWeZ d dkWye la[;k 24 dh iwrhZ djs rFkk QSdYVh dksM esa 01 HkjsA jktLFkku fo'ofo|ky; ls baVuZf'ki lfgr vk;qosZn uflZax esa rhu o"kZ fMIyksek] ( vks0,e0vkj0 ,Iyhds'ku QkWeZ d dkWye la[;k 24 dh iwfrZ djs rFkk QSdYVh dksM esa 02 Hkjs ) A ijUrq ;g gS fd mijksDr ;ksX;rk ds ikB~;dze dh vfUre o"kZ dh ijh{kk tks lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy, fu;eksa ;k vuqlwph esa ;Fkk mYysf[kr in ds fy, visf{kr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk esa lfEefyr gqvk ;k lfEefyr gksus okyk vk'kkFkh in ds fy, vkosnu djus ds fy, ik= gksxkA fdUrq mls vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr ijh{kk ls iwoZ] vis{kfgr 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk vftZr djus dk lcwr nsuk gksxkA " 6. As the above extract would demonstrate, a candidate in the final year of the Course pertaining to the academic qualification referred, though was qualified to apply, he/she was required to submit the proof of acquiring the said qualification on the date of the examination for the selection, to be fixed by the Commission. The Commission held the examination for the post on 29.6.2009. The Commission held the examination for the post on 29.6.2009. On that date admittedly, though the appellant/writ petitioner had appeared in the final year examination of the 3 Years Diploma Course in Ayurved Nurse-Compounder, his results had not been declared till then. 7. Be that as it may, the Commission declared the results of its written examination on 18.8.2009, in which the appellant/writ petitioner was shown to have been successful. Subsequent thereto, the Commission forwarded the application form of the successful candidates, including the appellant/writ petitioner, requiring them to fill up the same and submit those, alongwith the certificates relating to their academic qualification/training and duly attested caste certificates, as required. The interview for the post advertised was thereafter held on 23.9.2009 and 24.9.2009, in which the appellant/writ petitioner also participated. It was thereafter, that by letter dated 22.2.2010, the Commission informed the appellant/writ petitioner that his candidature had been canceled as he did not meet the academic qualification, as prescribed. Being aggrieved, he sought this Court's intervention, which was declined. 8. The learned Single Judge, while rejecting the impugnment, held that as mandated by the Rajasthan Ayurveda, Unani, Homoeopathic & Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Rules') and the advertisement, a candidate to be eligible, was to be essentially academically qualified on the date, on which the examination for the selection was held by the Commission. As the appellant/writ petitioner had passed the final year examination of the Three Years' Diploma Course in Ayurved Nurse-Compounder on 22.9.2009 i.e. after the examination was held by the Commission on 29.6.2009, he was rightly disqualified for the post. While reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Shankar K. Mandal & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 9 SCC 519 : AIR 2003 SC 4043 , the rendering in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Chander Shekher & Anr., 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 611 : 1993 AIR SCW 613 , was distinguished. 9. Mr.Taylor has emphatically argued that as the appellant/writ petitioner was admittedly qualified on the date on which the interview was held and the application form, accompanied by the necessary testimonials, was filed, the respondent-Commission was in apparent error in holding him ineligible. v. Chander Shekher & Anr., 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 611 : 1993 AIR SCW 613 , was distinguished. 9. Mr.Taylor has emphatically argued that as the appellant/writ petitioner was admittedly qualified on the date on which the interview was held and the application form, accompanied by the necessary testimonials, was filed, the respondent-Commission was in apparent error in holding him ineligible. According to the learned counsel, the action of the Commission is discriminatory as well, as while holding the appellant/writ petitioner to be ineligible for the post, for want of prescribed academic qualification, it included, in the final list of candidates to be appointed, those who had passed the final year examination of Three Years' Diploma Course in Ayurved Nurse-Compounder alongwith him. Contending that the learned Single Judge had erred in dismissing the writ petition, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), to reinforce his contentions. 10. We have analyzed the pleaded averments and have also scrutinised the documents placed on record, inter alia the advertisement, the results initially declared and the letter dated 22.2.2010, whereby the appellant/writ petitioner had been held to be disqualified, for want of academic qualification. 11. Noticeably, the respondent-Commission, in its reply, had stated that on receipt of the requisition from the State Government for appointment to the post of Compounder/Nurse (Ayurved) Junior Grade in the Medical & Health Department of the State under the Rules, the advertisement dated 25.8.2008 was issued to fill up 419 posts. However, the number of posts was later on sliced down to 371. It contended that as per the Rules and the advertisement published in conformity therewith, a candidate, to be eligible, was to possess academic qualification of Secondary/Higher Secondary/Senior Higher Secondary or its equivalent alongwith two and a half years professional training in Ayurved Nursing from the Department OR 3 Years' Diploma from the Rajasthan University with internship. It clarified that though a relaxation was accorded to the extent that the candidates, who had been prosecuting studies, were permitted to apply, they were required to produce proof of acquiring the qualification before the date of examination to be held by it. It clarified that though a relaxation was accorded to the extent that the candidates, who had been prosecuting studies, were permitted to apply, they were required to produce proof of acquiring the qualification before the date of examination to be held by it. The respondent-Commission stated that it held the examination for the selection on 29.6.2009, and that, though by then, the appellant/writ petitioner had not acquired the academic qualification, he took the risk of participating therein, whereafter he was provisionally called for counseling, for the purpose of verification of documents. According to the respondent-Commission, it was at that stage, that it was discerned that he was not qualified in terms of the Rules and the advertisement, and that therefore, the impugned action had to be taken. 12. The pleaded facts, as narrated hereinabove, do demonstrate in clear terms that on the date on which the respondent-Commission had held its examination i.e.29.6.2009, the results of the Final Year Examination of the Three Years' Diploma Course in Ayurved Nurse-Compounder, undertaken by the appellant/writ petitioner, had not been declared. It followed on 22.9.2009. In terms of the Rules and the advertisement, as adverted to hereinabove, he therefore, could not have produced any proof of his passing the said Course on 29.6.2009. As a matter of fact, the appellant/writ petitioner also does not claim to have done so. 13. A bare perusal of the results published by the Commission (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) would disclose in clear terms that it contained roll numbers of candidates, who were declared to have been provisionally selected, to whom application forms were to be furnished, to be filled up by providing necessary particulars pertaining to academic/training accomplishments etc., and that, on the scrutiny thereof, the final selection was to follow. The appellant/writ petitioner has neither questioned that the norm of academic eligibility, as set out in the advertisement, is not in accordance with the Rules nor the provision thereof has been impeached. In the face of the unambiguous criteria obligating the candidates to produce the proof of acquiring the required academic qualification on the date of the examination to be held by the Commission, the plea that the date, to adjudge the eligibility of a candidate, ought to be one of the interview, lacks in persuasion. In the face of the unambiguous criteria obligating the candidates to produce the proof of acquiring the required academic qualification on the date of the examination to be held by the Commission, the plea that the date, to adjudge the eligibility of a candidate, ought to be one of the interview, lacks in persuasion. In the face of the clear prescription in the advertisement that a candidate pursuing the relevant academic course would have to produce the proof of having acquired the academic qualification on the date of examination to be held by the Commission, this plea can, by no means, be sustained. The decision in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts, which indeed, demonstrate that the date of the interview was the touchstone, on which the eligibility of the contending candidates was to be determined. This decision, in our comprehension, is of no avail to the appellant/writ petitioner, in the teeth of the norm in this regard, as set out in the advertisement, as per the Rules. The learned Single Judge, in our estimate, did rightly rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shankar K. Mandal (supra), while distinguishing the verdict in Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra). 14. In view of the above, we do not find any reason whatsoever to entertain the present appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, we relieve the appellant/writ petitioner of the costs imposed.Appeal Dismissed. *******